Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Griff Lees Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Neil Doyle The complicated historical background involved in MARY OF Scotland is such that unless you know something about British monarchs you'll have a hard time knowing where the truth lies in this epic historical romance. But it's clear that KATHARINE HEPBURN gives a radiant performance as Mary, Queen of Scots--the only drawback being that she never ages a bit over a twenty-five year span. When she goes to her execution, she looks just as young as she did in the opening scene.It's a pleasure to report that FREDRIC MARCH breathes a lot of life into his portrayal of Bothwell. Too bad he didn't exhibit this kind of gusto when he played the title role in ANTHONY ADVERSE the same year. He's all bravado and robust athletic grace and looks good in his period costumes. Maybe we owe his strong performance to John Ford, but whatever it is, he's much better here than he was as Anthony Adverse.JOHN CARRADINE seemed an unusual choice to play Rizzo, the Italian secretary who happens to be a troubadour of sorts, but it's nice to see him in a more sympathetic role for a change. DONALD CRISP, ALAN MOBRAY, DOUGLAS WALTON and FRIEDA INESCOURT are interesting in supporting roles.Walton is another actor who shines here, rather than remaining colorless in the background of many a film. He gives a flamboyant performance as Lord Darnley and it's probably among the best roles he ever had.FLORENCE ELDRIDGE makes an interesting Queen Elizabeth, less showy in the role than Bette Davis or Flora Robson but still with the right amount of regal spirit.John Ford directs the first half of the film with his usual authority but things get a little too repetitious and slow-moving in the second half when tedium really settles in before Mary's final walk to the execution block.Summing up: A mixed bag, some strong performances, a few strong scenes but overall result is disappointing. Here's an historical romance that cried out for Technicolor. It manages to look drab in B&W despite the lavish costumes and good photography.

fimimix I saw this movie when it was originally released and I was 12-years-old. This was before Bette Davis had done any role of Elizabeth I, so all the gorgeous costumes (although B & W) and the icy queen got into my imagination immediately. Heck I liked ANY movie then - but, when "Mary, Queen of Scots" (Katherine Hepburn) appeared on the screen, I was smitten - what beauty ! That she was a consummate actress, even at that very young age, committed me to seeing all of her movies. I think I have, and enjoy seeing them all again. Bette Davis starred in "The Corn is Green", and Hepburn did a TV re-make - both were excellent, although many years apart, Davis definitely was the best - those eyes ! Ms. Hepburn's roles were magnificent, because she was smart enough to stay away from those which didn't suit her. Davis was an adventuress.....All of the few reviews written here about this very early - but wonderful - movie get very "teachy" in Scotish history. All of that is good to know, but forget it all; just enjoy raw acting without any special effects, except for the blowing-up of the castle. SEE - modern movies weren't the first ! Easy to tell who the "good folk" are and very easy to detect the villains."Mary" was doomed from the moment she set foot on Scottish soil. She had been the Queen of France of 2 years, very young and cultured and Scotland was a wasteland; she was totally unprepared to rule ANY country. Much of the plot (screenplay by Dudley Nichols) stressed that she was the rightful heir to her throne and also the throne of England. The aristocrats of Scotland had been without rule for so many years, they weren't about to give-up their power. It was evident when they did not greet her as their queen, and her half-brother didn't support her. A streak of determination to rule her kingdom only decided her fate - plus, she was Catholic.Although she was smitten at first sight of "Bothwell" (Frederic March), she was forced to marry her cousin, the "Earl of Moray" (Ian Keith) - a "fop", that is, a sissy male with lots of make-up - completely out of place for Scotland. One scene shows "The Earl" greeting "Mary's" ladies as "four lovely ladies", and they saying "now there is five". "Mary" needed a legitimate heir - "Elizabeth" feared it. "Elizabeth's" ambassador to Scotland was "Throckmorton" (Alan Mowbray), and kept her up-to-date on the heathens in Scotland.....they even murdered "Mary's" secretary, because he was a foreigner and Catholic, too - that should tell you a great deal. "John Knox" (Moroni Olsen) was all over the country screaming that Catholics were blasphemers - sounds like Iran, doesn't it? - and should be put to death.......Bin Laden hadn't been heard of.......The plot-twists let you know very early "Mary" would have to escape all the sabotage in Scotland, getting Elizabeth's permission "to visit" in England - which turned into 19 years of imprisonment. They had never met, but it was apparent "Elizabeth" wasn't about to harbor a threat to her throne and had plotted to get "Mary" under her care - in prison.Hepburn's acting is solid all through this historical movie. She stole every scene. All of the other prominent actors - and there were many in this film - couldn't hold a candle to her. Her "trial" was epic. She was aware she was being framed, but realized she had already been judged guilty. "Elizabeth" finally came to visit her in her apartment, but was only interested in getting "Mary" to abdicate. Surprise ! "Mary" did not relent, and "Elizabeth" stomped out. "Mary" was beheaded the next day.Seeing an early movie like this would have told anyone that this was going to be the greatest communication with the masses worldwide. The radiance of Hepburn's acting ordained a great career for this lady. My copy of the VHS is so bad - and, unfortunately, so was the screening in the theater - one would wonder how the industry would survive. When the photography was good, it was wonderful - everyone involved in this film played their roles well, because many of them were actors from silent-screen or the stage. Few younger people would sit still for all this tackiness, but - if they could - they'd see that "movies" were here to stay, and there was magic for the future. Kudos to all those prominent actors, but Ms. Hepburn stole the show - Brava ! I recommend this piece of filmic history to everyone - it gets a 15 -

theowinthrop Brooks Atkinson was a first rate drama critic for the New York Times. He had blind spots. He over enthused on the career of Maxwell Anderson. Anderson wrote some good plays such as "Winterset", but Anderson was enthusiastic of Anderson's pompous attempts to do dramas in blank verse: "Mary Of Scotland", "Elizabeth The Queen", and "Anne Of The Thousand Days". The problem with these plays is, even if they get the history right they are too stiff. Compare the conclusion of "Elizabeth The Queen" to "A Man For All Seasons". Yes, the loneliness of the elderly Elizabeth is shown as Essex goes to his doom - but in reality Elizabeth knew there were other young men to replace her dangerous, ambitious lover. In "All Seasons" the tragedy of a rotten system crushing the life of a decent, thoughtful man like Thomas More is far more powerful as it's stark tragedy is silently brought to us.That said, the first of the three Tudor tragedies to be filmed was "Mary Of Scotland". It is above average because it is starring Katherine Hepburn (a distant relative of Mary's third husband the Earl of Bothwell) and Frederic March, and directed wholly or partially by John Ford. It suffers from being black and white, except for one moment of sheer unexpected terror: when Mary sees the Scots nobles who oppose her they are photographed in such light and darkness to look like ogres in a nightmare.The film follows the reign of Mary from 1560 to her execution in 1587. Most Americans do not understand the great difficulties that Mary (and Elizabeth) both faced in their parallel reigns. While England and Scotland allowed for female monarchs, women were not considered good material for rulers. They were considered governed by their emotions more than by their brains. Those women who ruled well were usually married to capable partners (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon of Spain). More frequently they were dismissed as misfits, like Isabella and Ferdinand's daughter Juana the Mad).Mary had other problems. From 1400 to 1560 the nobles of Scotland got a great boon. Scotland had a series of minors who grew up to be king, married, and then died before they could cement their monarchic views on the government. The nobles cemented their local powers at the expense of a weak central authority. Mary had been Queen of France, married to Francis II who ruled for a two year period (1559 - 1560). As Mary was the niece of the Duc De Guise, the king's power-hungry mother Catherine De Medici hated her. When Francis died suddenly, Catherine encouraged Mary to return to rule her own country. Surprised Mary did so, not realizing that she was unprepared to start ruling. She was a Catholic, and she really needed some time to understand the need to compromise and take advice from Protestants. She never did understand this.Her foes hated her and were fully supported by Elizabeth, who never could see that an attempt to join forces with her cousin might pay back great dividends. But then Mary was ambitious - she wanted to be Queen of England as well as Scotland. Her Catholic supporters felt she was legitimate Queen of England (as Henry VIII had briefly disowned Elizabeth as a bastard when he executed her mother Anne). So the peaceful resolution of their differences was almost impossible.Elizabeth had only to watch from the sidelines, with only an occasional move on her own part, to see Mary wreck her own position. She encouraged a marriage between another cousin/potential heir Lord Henry Darnley to Mary (Mary almost chose Elizabeth's lover Robert Dudley!). The marriage was a disaster, as Darnley was an ambitious fool and vicious scoundrel. But it cemented a Scottish succession to the British throne from two Tudor heirs instead of one.Hepburn portrays Mary as a brave woman desperately seeking a way out of the difficult situation she has inherited, especially tied to Darnley by marriage and facing the ghouls who are John Knox (Moroni Olsen) and the Scottish nobles - led by her jealous half brother the Earl of Moray (Ian Keith). Her only allies are the independent Earl of Bothwell (March) and her secretary Rizzio (John Carridine). The murder of the latter (implicating Darnley) is the first step to her loss of the throne, and to the death of her husband. We know today that Kirk'a'Field house was blown up by Bothwell, but to this day we don't know if Mary was implicated. It remains one of the big mysteries of the 16th Century.Historically Bothwell was no prince, but ambitious in his own right - he killed Darnley in order to marry Mary, and guide her to rule both Scotland and England. But March plays him as a man deeply in love with his Queen, and this enhances the story's tragedy - especially as Bothwell died in exile insane. The reason for this was his ship was captured by a Danish warship. Bothwell was guilty of a rape in Denmark, and was imprisoned. His punishment (which led to his madness) was to stand chained to a stone pillar that was half his height.The last ten minutes glosses over the road that led Mary to the block in England - her support of a plot by one Anthony Babbington to kill Elizabeth and let Mary take the throne. Elizabeth's spy-master Sir Francis Walsingham sprung this trap - though Elizabeth did not reject the result. Elizabeth allowed a functionary to be blamed for falsely getting her to sign the death warrant - but all she did was briefly imprison the man. Unlike her movie representative (Florence Eldritch) she never met Mary.A good film - but it is too gentle on Mary's failings, and not deep enough to explain what is going on in the background.

Ron Oliver MARY OF SCOTLAND, caught up in intrigues over which she has no control, finds herself at the mercy of powerful forces that wish her ill.John Ford crafted this meticulous, thoughtful study into the life of the Scottish Queen and the trials & tribulations which buffeted her. With a complicated plot and a very large cast, the film presupposes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of its viewers, as well as an interest in the history of Great Britain. The film is not easy to watch - this is, after all, an historical drama, not a musical comedy - but the viewer's attention should be paid off in the end. Very fine production values also help greatly in the movie's appreciation.Katharine Hepburn is luminous & regal in the title role. Continuing in the tradition of formidable actresses of the 1930's who played queens on the screen (Colbert, Garbo, Dietrich, Shearer, Robson, Davis) Hepburn gives a strong portrayal of the stubborn, independently minded Scottish monarch. Kate makes the viewer at once feel an engaging interest in this poor lady, so beset by ‘the slings & arrows of outrageous fortune.' Wisely not speaking in a brogue - the real Mary probably didn't either - Hepburn uses her remarkable face & voice to make this long-dead historical figure come alive.As the Earl of Bothwell, Mary's 3rd husband, Fredric March provides a sturdy hero worth cheering. Here is a man willing to confront any danger for the sake of the woman he loves. If the real Bothwell was perhaps not quite so noble, no matter. March breathes vibrant, pulsing life into the character and embodies him with real strengths & virtues.A large & exceptional cast give fine support to the principals. Some deserve special mention:John Carradine as Mary's tragic Italian secretary, Rizzio; Douglas Walton as Lord Darnley, Mary's repugnant 2nd husband; Ian Keith as her unscrupulous half-brother, the Lord Moray. Florence Eldridge stands out in her portrayal of the conflicted Queen Elizabeth.Moroni Olsen as a fiery John Knox; Donald Crisp as a loyal old laird; Ralph Forbes & Alan Mowbray as Elizabeth's ambassadors; and dear old Mary Gordon as a baby nurse - all have their brief moments to shine.Lionel Belmore & Doris Lloyd (with an unbilled Bobs Watson as their son) play poor fisher folk who give Mary much needed succor. Ivan Simpson & Nigel de Brulier play two of the wicked English judges who condemn Mary to death.But it is Hepburn the viewer remembers longest. Her shining eyes & majestic mien remain in the mind for a very long time***********************The circumstances surrounding the murder of David Rizzio are so well documented that it is somewhat surprising that Ford did not stick more scrupulously to the facts. Darnley and his fellow conspirators entered the Queen's apartments via a private, narrow staircase, hidden in the wall, which communicated directly with Mary's rooms. There is no indication that her bodyguard troops were slain as well, as the film depicts.The script is at pains to keep the Earl of Bothwell a noble hero and uninvolved in Darnley's murder. However, there's little doubt of Bothwell's guilt in the affair. Darnley was not killed outright by the massive explosion - rather he was found, terribly hurt but still alive, lying in a nearby field. He was quickly strangled.The movie does not make clear that it was in Denmark where Bothwell died in prison in 1578. Mary had divorced him in 1570.Unlike the relatively short time depicted in the film, Mary was actually a captive of Elizabeth for 19 years, outliving Bothwell by nine years. Elizabeth & Mary never met - it makes good film drama, but it didn't happen.